What you're talking about is springboarding. The movie doesn't magically get better under a different name. It just gets more attention and hype that is doesn't deserve. Different argument.
What I'm talking about is how comparisons are simply what you ask for when you choose to remake a film. You don't want them, but they're the inevitable byproduct, and the quality of the film has nothing to do with that.
We've had this discussion before. Smart humans can actually see remakes two ways. As it's own entity and as an entity in conjunction with it's respective franchise. I can totally not compare Michael Myers in RZ's H1 to JC's H1....but he's Michael Myers...so I do anyway. I can look past all that just fine and say that Halloween 1 is an okay slasher film that's perfectly fine on it's own....but hey it's also a remake of a film that I think is much better, so since the film invites itself to that comparison, I put it out there. Why? Well...it's a remake that's why. Too bad too sad, it's getting compared. I think Maniac's remake is fantastic. A fucking phenomenal film that completely stands on it's own. I also think the original is slightly better, and never fail to mention that when it pops up in conversation. Was the comparison necessary to judge the film? Nope. But it invites the comparison, so it gets made. Look at a film like Wolf Creek. That film could easily be any other slasher film's sequel or remake. If Wolf Creek had a few details changed and was say, a Texas Chainsaw sequel/remake it would be incessantly praised, shat on, ridiculed, or adored because it's in the TCM timeline. But as it's own separate entity...as Wolf Creek...Wolf Creek is just Wolf Creek. People love it and they love Mick and he doesn't get bogged down by any unnecessary comparisons to a prior incarnation of himself, despite incorporating a lot of other slasher villain inspirations.
That's a harsh reality Seben. You remake something, it gets held side by side with the original regardless of it's quality. More at 11. Maybe if they don't want that...call it something else and sever it's ties to any of that baggage?
Join the Official "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 is Superior to the Original" Fan Club today! For the low price of: Stop lying to yourselves and admit it you cowards!
You poor lost child, this isn't even about about "quality". I've told you this literally a bajillion times, that you can completely view a film as a separate entity AND how it sits in it's respective franchise. I'm simply telling you about the inevitability of what happens when you start slapping on the "remake" sticker.
This presentation ONCE AGAIN because Seben forgot it from before:
Halloween 2007: Okay slasher film. <--- There see? I did it. That has nothing to do with anything. It just is.
Halloween 2007: Bad Halloween film <--- Now THAT is a separate opinion, judged with different parameters. Why? Because it's a remake. It literally asked for the comparison. Is it necessary? No. But is it going to happen? Yes. Because the film's name and plot and characters literally beg for the comparison. I can hold both opinions of the same film, despite you not being able to grasp that I can judge a work based on it's individual makings and craft.
You don't see many people saying Wolf Creek is a shit slasher film because Mick Taylor isn't like Jason Voorhees/Freddy/Michael/etc. Because Mick Taylor is Mick Taylor. Mick Taylor is judged as his own, and better yet with no comparison to a prior incarnation of himself necessary. But what if someone had retooled Mick Taylor and Wolf Creek to be say, a TCM film? Or a Halloween film or what the fuck ever, but the craft of the film remained largely the same? Well, then you get comparisons that otherwise wouldn't have happened. Because now Mick Taylor is now Leatherface or Michael Myers or some shit. Because, fucking duh, they're inviting the comparisons by way of interpreting a pre-existing idea, rather than just creating something altogether unique.
So yeah comparisons happen when remakes do. More at fucking 11 genius.
Join the Official "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 is Superior to the Original" Fan Club today! For the low price of: Stop lying to yourselves and admit it you cowards!
Wolf Creek is Wolf Creek, in and of itself, it's judged on its own merits, it could be more or less fun than a Jason or Freddy movie, but you still judge it on how it does it's own thing
If they had retooled the script and adapted it, and replaced Mick with say The Shape or Jason, then it would get judged on how well it fits the lore of them
You could do the same thing in reverse too, say you got a script of some Horror Icon, but it's kinda crap as far as that Icon goes, retool the script, and it could be a decent movie
You could have done just that with Godzilla 1998, a little easier said than done, but change the name, could make it an alien invasion or not, but then it stands on it's own for good or bad, not as a Godzilla flick
@Se7en
Of course you don't. You've forgotten the discussion despite us having it about 3 or 4 times before. What it means is when you aren't remaking something you leave only the film to be judged on it's own merit. But when you make a remake or even a sequel, you're inviting the comparison to be made on the prior version or the prior entries. Kinda obvious. That's just harsh reality for you, and not everyone has the emotional maturity to look at the film without the fanboy eyes like I can. To use Halloween furthermore, I actually don't mind a rewatch of the RZ remake every now and again, because it's still a pretty solid horror film. But there are those out there who'd refuse to watch it on sheer principle of how it compares to JC's. Comparisons are just an inevitability at that point. You used the property and the characters and/or plot, so you've quite literally put something up for comparison. Don't want the comparison, don't make it comparable.
@Willowfang
I've seen the 1998 Godzilla that way all my life. As a kid I actually liked it a LOT (less so these days, but that has more to do with the poor aging of the effects). I didn't care a single bit that he looked nothing like Japanese Goji, because he was a separate entity. I just liked the giant monster action and destruction. But later on when I realized just how much people fucking hated it, I completely understood the sentiment of those pissed off fan, and even agreed that it wasn't "true" Godzilla. But in the end, I still liked it as a giant monster flick regardless of that. Furthermore, I was first and foremost a fan of the Japanese Godzilla, so even I knew 100% knew that the American Zilla did quite a disservice to the portrayal of the indestructable original. It's almost like smart people who look past emotional knee-jerk reactions have the ability to see movies from multiple perspectives or something.
That said, without that baggage of being a remake, it would have indeed probably been much better off. Maybe even a fondly remembered dumb blockbluster of the 90s. Even then, I've long said Godzilla 1998 would have been far better received if it were billed as a Beast From 20,000 Fathoms remake.
Join the Official "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 is Superior to the Original" Fan Club today! For the low price of: Stop lying to yourselves and admit it you cowards!
My guess is that the other Mothers will be incorporated into the film somehow, thus making it way longer. They're already hinting at it in the trailer with the quick shot of the notebook which had the Three Mothers names and descriptions of their powers.
I agree with Rusted. Length is no issue if its engaging. Warriors of the Rainbow is about 5 hours long, and its an amazing film. Everytime I watch it it just flies by
A few of Sergio Leone's films are so long, but I never want The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (almost 3 hours), Once Upon a Time in the West (2.45 hours), and Once Upon a Time in America (almost a whopping 4 hours) to end.
"It's Frank. It's Uncle Frank. You remember. Come to Daddy."
Comments
What I'm talking about is how comparisons are simply what you ask for when you choose to remake a film. You don't want them, but they're the inevitable byproduct, and the quality of the film has nothing to do with that.
We've had this discussion before. Smart humans can actually see remakes two ways. As it's own entity and as an entity in conjunction with it's respective franchise. I can totally not compare Michael Myers in RZ's H1 to JC's H1....but he's Michael Myers...so I do anyway. I can look past all that just fine and say that Halloween 1 is an okay slasher film that's perfectly fine on it's own....but hey it's also a remake of a film that I think is much better, so since the film invites itself to that comparison, I put it out there. Why? Well...it's a remake that's why. Too bad too sad, it's getting compared. I think Maniac's remake is fantastic. A fucking phenomenal film that completely stands on it's own. I also think the original is slightly better, and never fail to mention that when it pops up in conversation. Was the comparison necessary to judge the film? Nope. But it invites the comparison, so it gets made. Look at a film like Wolf Creek. That film could easily be any other slasher film's sequel or remake. If Wolf Creek had a few details changed and was say, a Texas Chainsaw sequel/remake it would be incessantly praised, shat on, ridiculed, or adored because it's in the TCM timeline. But as it's own separate entity...as Wolf Creek...Wolf Creek is just Wolf Creek. People love it and they love Mick and he doesn't get bogged down by any unnecessary comparisons to a prior incarnation of himself, despite incorporating a lot of other slasher villain inspirations.
That's a harsh reality Seben. You remake something, it gets held side by side with the original regardless of it's quality. More at 11. Maybe if they don't want that...call it something else and sever it's ties to any of that baggage?
This presentation ONCE AGAIN because Seben forgot it from before:
Halloween 2007: Okay slasher film. <--- There see? I did it. That has nothing to do with anything. It just is.
Halloween 2007: Bad Halloween film <--- Now THAT is a separate opinion, judged with different parameters. Why? Because it's a remake. It literally asked for the comparison. Is it necessary? No. But is it going to happen? Yes. Because the film's name and plot and characters literally beg for the comparison. I can hold both opinions of the same film, despite you not being able to grasp that I can judge a work based on it's individual makings and craft.
You don't see many people saying Wolf Creek is a shit slasher film because Mick Taylor isn't like Jason Voorhees/Freddy/Michael/etc. Because Mick Taylor is Mick Taylor. Mick Taylor is judged as his own, and better yet with no comparison to a prior incarnation of himself necessary. But what if someone had retooled Mick Taylor and Wolf Creek to be say, a TCM film? Or a Halloween film or what the fuck ever, but the craft of the film remained largely the same? Well, then you get comparisons that otherwise wouldn't have happened. Because now Mick Taylor is now Leatherface or Michael Myers or some shit. Because, fucking duh, they're inviting the comparisons by way of interpreting a pre-existing idea, rather than just creating something altogether unique.
So yeah comparisons happen when remakes do. More at fucking 11 genius.
If they had retooled the script and adapted it, and replaced Mick with say The Shape or Jason, then it would get judged on how well it fits the lore of them
You could do the same thing in reverse too, say you got a script of some Horror Icon, but it's kinda crap as far as that Icon goes, retool the script, and it could be a decent movie
You could have done just that with Godzilla 1998, a little easier said than done, but change the name, could make it an alien invasion or not, but then it stands on it's own for good or bad, not as a Godzilla flick
It was the cow...
Of course you don't. You've forgotten the discussion despite us having it about 3 or 4 times before. What it means is when you aren't remaking something you leave only the film to be judged on it's own merit. But when you make a remake or even a sequel, you're inviting the comparison to be made on the prior version or the prior entries. Kinda obvious. That's just harsh reality for you, and not everyone has the emotional maturity to look at the film without the fanboy eyes like I can. To use Halloween furthermore, I actually don't mind a rewatch of the RZ remake every now and again, because it's still a pretty solid horror film. But there are those out there who'd refuse to watch it on sheer principle of how it compares to JC's. Comparisons are just an inevitability at that point. You used the property and the characters and/or plot, so you've quite literally put something up for comparison. Don't want the comparison, don't make it comparable.
@Willowfang
I've seen the 1998 Godzilla that way all my life. As a kid I actually liked it a LOT (less so these days, but that has more to do with the poor aging of the effects). I didn't care a single bit that he looked nothing like Japanese Goji, because he was a separate entity. I just liked the giant monster action and destruction. But later on when I realized just how much people fucking hated it, I completely understood the sentiment of those pissed off fan, and even agreed that it wasn't "true" Godzilla. But in the end, I still liked it as a giant monster flick regardless of that. Furthermore, I was first and foremost a fan of the Japanese Godzilla, so even I knew 100% knew that the American Zilla did quite a disservice to the portrayal of the indestructable original. It's almost like smart people who look past emotional knee-jerk reactions have the ability to see movies from multiple perspectives or something.
That said, without that baggage of being a remake, it would have indeed probably been much better off. Maybe even a fondly remembered dumb blockbluster of the 90s. Even then, I've long said Godzilla 1998 would have been far better received if it were billed as a Beast From 20,000 Fathoms remake.
It was the cow...
Interesting.
The Shining is longer
Movies in general shouldn't be 2 1/2 hours to begin with
Edit
And I'm almost certain Shining is 2 hours 22 minutes brah
But I can live with 2 1/2 hours, as long as it is justified. We'll see.
The LOTR trilogy, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Godfather 1 and 2, TDK etc all great, long movies.